Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-04-14-PWSC-rpt.pdf
DPW Facility Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Boad of Selectmen April 14, 2003 we DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 1 of 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDED "BEST POSSIBLE USE" FOR 201 BEDFORD STREET Responding to the Board of Selectmen's charge to recommend "the best possible reuse of 201 Bedford Street that will allow the Town the opportunity to build a new Senior Center and a new Department of Public Works Facility and determine the financing strategies that might be pursued," The DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-Evaluation Committee, with only one dissenting member, recommends that the "best possible use" of 201 Bedford Street be as a combined use site for a new Senior Center and for a residential development by a private developer The Committee finds that building a new DPW facility at the Hartwell Avenue landfill site, coupled with a new Senior Center and private development at 201 Bedford Street, meets the Committee's criteria for "best possible use." This scenario would: ■ Have minimal adverse impact on DPW's services to the community, yet create opportunities for efficiencies and productivity gains within DPW's operations that might offset annual incremental operating costs estimated to range from $42,000 to $75,000; • Allow the Town to make progress toward some of the goals expressed in Lexington's shared vision for the year 2020, including: ✓ Expand eldercare services ✓ Preserve the physical character of residential neighborhoods ✓ Provide increased housing options to promote diversity of income and age ✓ Increase protected open space ✓ Create alternative revenue sources • Generate up to $525,000 in net annual incremental revenue, depending on the extent to which incremental town service costs offset incremental real estate taxes, payments in-lieu-of taxes, or annual lease payments; ■ Result in one-time revenue ranging from $1,000,000 to $14,677,000 from the sale of 201 Bedford Street, depending on the type of residential development and the extent to which private developers might assume costs of environmental cleanup and/or contribute to building a new Senior Center or new DPW facility; • Preserve the option for private development of 6 to 8 acres at the Hartwell Avenue site, creating further opportunities to generate revenue from the sale or lease of part of the site, as well as from incremental real estate taxes or payments in-lieu-of taxes; IN Create sufficient alternative revenues to avoid the need to rely entirely on debt exclusion overrides to finance the costs of a new Senior Center and new DPW facility DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 2 of 8 ARTICLE 25 RESOLUTION The Committee recognizes that a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting is necessary to rezone 201 Bedford Street for residential use or to dispose of some or all of this property However, the Committee recommends that under Article 25 the Board of Selectmen present a resolution endorsing the Committee s "best possible use" to invite comment from town boards, committees, commissions, town meeting members, citizens, and other interested parties. While passing such a resolution would not commit the town to this scenario, Town Meeting's discussion and action on the resolution would signal clearly whether or not the Town should pursue this recommended "best possible use." EVALUATION CRITERIA The Committee developed and applied the following criteria for determining the `best" possible use for 201 Bedford Street: • Consistency with Lexington's core values • Consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan • Net annual financial implications of the project for the town The Committee considered such factors as annual tax revenue, revenue from lease of property, incremental DPW and other town operating costs, and other economic costs and benefits. • One-time financial implications of the project for the town Factors considered included proceeds received from sale of the land parcel, site-specific capital costs, DPW and Senior Center construction costs, capital costs defrayed by the developer, etc. (The net cost or benefit to the Town will also depend on the costs to build a new DPW facility and Senior Center Current conceptual estimates are $10.6 million and$6 million, respectively The Town has not yet determined the size, scope, and cost of these two projects.) • Impacts on abutters and the neighborhood How would the proposed use affect traffic, noise, views of the site, and the character of the neighborhood? • Community support for the proposed use Any change of use for 201 Bedford Street will require broad support from Town Meeting and the community As set forth in the Selectmen's charge to the Committee, the Committee conducted public information sessions to hear community reactions to the proposals. The chair of the Committee also wrote two letters to neighbors inviting feedback by phone and email. LESS DESIRABLE USES The Committee evaluated two other options for 201 Bedford Street and found them to be less desirable: Continued exclusive use as a DPW Operations facility, whether by demolishing existing buildings and building new or renovating some existing facilities and building new Building both a new senior center and new DPW facilities on the 9.6-acre site, most likely by placing the senior center closest to Bedford Street, with DPW structures and yard operations behind. Exhibit B summarizes the Committee's evaluation of the siting options for a new DPW facility DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 3 of 8 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The "best possible use" of 201 Bedford Street is to preserve a site for a new Senior Center and sell a portion of the parcel to a developer who would build mixed residential housing. The Committee received 14 responses to its Request for Interest (RFI) in developing 201 Bedford Street. Most developers proposed residential uses, proposing between 43 and 154 housing units and buildings 2 to 4 stories high. Several developers suggested "over-55" housing. Exhibit C provides information on the RFI, and Exhibit D summarizes the responses to the RFI. These responses suggest that the Town would derive the following benefits from the sale of 201 Bedford Street: 1. One-time sale proceeds ranging from $1 million to nearly $14.9 million, averaging $5.5 million. The sales price would reflect the density the Town would allow on the site, proportion of affordable housing units, whether the developer would contribute to a Senior Center, and whether the Town or the developer would be responsible for any environmental cleanup. 2. Incremental annual real estate taxes ranging from $175,000 to $525,000, averaging $337,000. While some developers expressed a willingness to lease the site, none proposed an amount for annual lease payments. 3. A site reserved for a new Senior Center 4. Partial or full funding for a new Senior Center Some responses indicated an interest in collaborating with the Town in designing and building a Senior Center, including the possibility of building it at no cost to the Town. A private developer could build a Senior Center to town specifications at a lower cost than could the Town and then transfer ownership to the Town. 5. Opportunities to include some number of affordable housing units. Residential development of part of 201 Bedford Street would enable the Town to increase housing options that will promote diversity of income and age. Several developers proposed "over 55" housing. Most developers indicated a willingness to discuss affordable housing with the Town. 6. Opportunities to develop open space within or adjacent to the development. The North Lexington Brook meanders back and forth under the Minuteman Bikeway that borders this site. While the Conservation Commission regulates development close to this stream, the town could place conservation restrictions on some parts of the parcel. For example, the Town could stipulate that the developer would develop a linear park along the Bikeway Neighbors and other interested citizens generally support a residential development within parameters that the Town would establish through a formal disposition process. During public information sessions conducted by the Committee on March 11 and 13, residents living near 201 Bedford Street and other interested townspeople voiced several concerns about the prospect of residential development at 201 Bedford Street. Neighbors were particularly concerned with traffic impacts— increasing traffic on Bedford Street, adding one or more access/egress roads to the site, and compounding the difficulty of entering Bedford Street from Sunny Knoll Avenue. DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 4 of 8 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES(CONTINUED) BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(Continued) Creating open space as a buffer to the Bikeway and to abutters and internal to the development was deemed desirable. Maintaining the residential scale of the neighborhood rather than building four-story buildings was deemed important. Advocates for affordable housing encouraged consideration of the Town requiring the developer to set aside a percentage of the development as affordable units. One developer proposed a retail development anchored by a 60,000 sq ft grocery store, allocating the rear of the site for a new Senior Center. Consistent with the concerns expressed above, those in attendance preferred a residential development built within parameters that the Town would establish in a formal disposition process. Reaction to an "over-55" housing development was split, with some favoring a more diverse development and others supporting the need in Lexington for such housing. Consolidating DPW operations in a new facility at the Hartwell Avenue landfill site is the best of the four options for building a new DPW facility (See Exhibit B, "Evaluation of Site Options for DPW Facility ") A majority of the Committee believes that the benefits of this approach outweigh any adverse service impacts and incremental operating costs of this relocation to this site more remote than 201 Bedford St. Increases in productivity and efficiency due to consolidated operations at a single site may well offset the estimated increase of$42,000 to $75,000 in annual DPW operating costs. The Committee reviewed two estimates prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) of incremental annual operating costs resulting from consolidating DPW's operations at Hartwell Avenue: ■ In its January 2001 report titled "Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Department of Public Works Facility," CDM compared operating costs of alternative DPW locations. The analysis suggested that a consolidated facility at Hartwell Avenue rather than at 201 Bedford Street would result in annual incremental costs of$42,000, consisting of the following: ✓ $20,000 as the estimated annual maintenance cost of a methane gas collection system to trap and collect landfill gases; ✓ $15,000 in additional labor costs due to additional travel time from Hartwell Avenue to and from work sites as compared to 201 Bedford Street; I $7,000 in incremental truck operating costs and increased fuel costs resulting from these greater travel distances. • In November 2002 this Committee asked CDM to review this analysis. One committee member logged mileage and travel times to many of the over 30 work sites used in the January 2001 analysis. Further, the Committee recommended assuming an average travel speed of 15 mph rather than the 30 mph assumed in the original analysis. In January 2003 CDM reported that the incremental travel costs might be$54,800 rather than $22,000, consisting of: I $47,400 in additional labor costs due to additional travel time and V. $7,400 in incremental fuel and truck operating costs. DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 5 of 8 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES(CONTINUED) BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(Continued) For FY 2003 DPW has 88 full-time employees and an operating budget of$20.4 million. If the Hartwell Avenue location were to add $75,000 to DPW's operating budget, the increase would be less than 0.4% of DPW's $20 4 million budget, equivalent to less than two full-time employees. The Director of Public Works has identified several economies that would result from a consolidated operation at Hartwell Avenue. While these savings are difficult to quantify, he believes that with a new DPW facility at Hartwell Avenue reducing annual operating costs by $75,000 is an achievable goal. Even with the addition of DPW operations, the Hartwell Avenue landfill site offers development opportunities with the potential to financially benefit the Town. The 25-acre Hartwell Avenue landfill site is more than adequate to add a new DPW operations facility (requiring 9 acres) to the existing composting operation (10 acres) and household hazardous waste facility (1.5 acres). A space-efficient site plan would leave 6-8 acres for other town use or private development. In its report to the 2003 Town Meeting, the Selectmen's Electric Utility Ad Hoc Committee (EUAHC) described the market forces and site attributes that make Hartwell Avenue well-suited as a site for a power generation facility A 90-megawatt plant costing$50-$60 million to build would require a site of about six acres. Such a facility would create the following economic benefits to the Town: 1. Proceeds from the sale or lease of a portion of the Hartwell Avenue site. The sale of six acres at Hartwell Avenue might bring $1.5 to $3 million. 2. Incremental revenues from real estate taxes or payments in-lieu-of taxes (PILOT). In a March meeting with the EUAHC and DPW staff, one potential developer suggested an annual PILOT payment of$300,000. At the estimated FY 2004 commercial tax rate of$22.42, a power generation station assessed at$50 million would yield $1,121,000 in incremental tax revenue. $1 1 million would support an $11 million bond issued for 20 years at 5% interest. 3. A financial contribution or in-kind services for a new DPW facility and/or facilities for a municipal electric utility Some developers might negotiate with the Town to build a DPW facility to meet town requirements in exchange for a reduced purchase price or a PILOT agreement. A private party could also build a DPW facility to town specifications at a lower cost than could the Town and then transfer ownership to the Town. Using the 201 Bedford Street RFI as a model, the Committee recommends that the Town issue an RFI for Hartwell Avenue to invite interested parties to respond to the opportunity to purchase or lease some or all of the Hartwell Avenue site. The RFI could state the Town's preferences for relocating DPW operations to Hartwell Avenue and for preserving the existing composting and household hazardous waste disposal operations, but solicit any and all proposals for developing the site. This RFI process would provide the Town with an indication of the potential benefits of different types of development and identify the cost of missed opportunities, if any, of relocating DPW to this site. DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 6 of 8 LESS DESIRABLE USE: DPW RETAINS EXCLUSIVE USE A majority of the Committee finds that allowing DPW to continue its exclusive use, whether in a completely new or partially new and renovated facilities, is not the "best possible use" of 201 Bedford Street. The Committee considered two options for allowing continued use of the site for the exclusive use of DPW • Demolishing existing DPW facilities and building new to optimize the layout of new facilities • Salvaging and renovating existing facilities to the extent possible and building any needed new facilities Please see Exhibit B for the Committee's evaluation of these two options. The Committee found that DPW's exclusive use would be less than optimal because such use would: • Require designating another site, possibly Town open space, for a senior center If 201 Bedford Street is not designated for a new Senior Center, then the Council on Aging has indicated that it will ask the Selectmen to reconsider the North Street and Worthen Road sites. • Continue a use inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. • Do nothing to increase affordable housing options. • Provide only very limited opportunities to increase protected open space. IN Generate no incremental revenue, thus requiring that a new DPW facility be paid for entirely by a debt exclusion override. The Committee did ask the Director of Public Works to investigate the potential cost savings of renovating and expanding the existing facilities at 201 Bedford Street to provide adequate and appropriate space to meet DPW's needs. In a February 2003 letter, CDM highlighted two findings: • CDM estimated the value of using the existing buildings to range between $450,000 and $655,000, only 4% to 6% of the projected construction costs of$10.6 million to build new facilities at this site. • CDM observed that the increased costs of construction in and around existing structures or the need to create "swing space" for DPW operations would likely offset these apparent cost savings. (CDM's January 2001 construction cost estimate for a new facility at 201 Bedford Street includes$514,000 as an "Allowance for Continued Operations"during construction.) By building a new facility at Hartwell Avenue rather than renovating and expanding at 201 Bedford Street, the Town would avoid these increased costs and potential service disruptions. DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 7 of 8 LESS DESIRABLE USE: DPW AND A SENIOR CENTER TOGETHER While it might be possible to accommodate both a new DPW facility and a new Senior Center at 201 Bedford Street, the Committee unanimously recommends that the Town should not pursue this approach. At this early stage of project development, the COA indicates that a new Senior Center will be a 32,000 sq ft building and need 150 parking spaces, thus requiring a site between 2 and 3 acres. DPW now occupies and uses the entire 9.6-acre site. Thus, DPW would have only 6.6 to 7.6 acres to meet its requirements. The last page of Exhibit B is CDM's conceptual site plan for such a.combined use, with the Senior Center and associated parking closest to Bedford Street. Neither facility would have any opportunities for expansion on the site. Some citizens have expressed concerns that these two uses would be incompatible and result in less than satisfactory facilities for both parties. While this option would enable the Town to expand elder services, the Committee found that co- locating both facilities at 201 Bedford Street would do little else to make progress toward other Town goals. This combined use would also be less than optimal because: • DPW's continued use would still be inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. • No progress would be made toward increasing affordable housing options. • The intensive development of the site required for both uses would limit opportunities to increase protected open space. ■ Since the continued use of 201 Bedford Street for town purposes would generate no incremental revenue, voters would have to approve debt exclusion overrides to build both a new Senior Center and new DPW facilities. FINANCING MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS: NEW MODEL REQUIRED? The Town's recent practice has been to issue bonds to finance major capital projects, requiring the Town's voters to approve debt exclusion overrides. The sale of portions of 201 Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue might allow the Town to finance a new DPW facility and Senior Center without debt exclusion overrides. To address the Town's many major capital needs, the Board of Selectmen has adopted a capital financing model relying on voter approval of debt exclusion overrides every three years. If the Town continues with this model, then voters will next be asked to approve a debt exclusion override in spring 2005 The projects under consideration for this override might be the substantial renovation or new construction of two elementary schools, construction of a new DPW operations facility, and construction of a new senior center Total project cost for these four projects could exceed $50 million. DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-evaluation Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Selectmen April 14, 2003 Page 8 of 8 FINANCING MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS: NEW MODEL REQUIRED? (CONTINUED) Rising Town employee health insurance costs, anticipated reductions in state aid, little or no growth in local receipts, and diminished "Free Cash" are the major drivers of the significant gap between estimated revenues and projected operating expenses for the 2003-04 fiscal year To close this gap, the Board of Selectmen has indicated that it will propose a$5 million operating override in spring 2003 Given the fiscal realities outlined by the Town Manager, the Appropriation Committee, and Capital Expenditures Committee at this year's Town Meeting, going forward the Town will have to reconsider how to finance major capital projects. In this fiscal environment, the Committee believes that it will be necessary to find alternatives to debt exclusion overrides to finance major capital projects. The Committee finds the fiscal benefits of its recommended uses of 201 Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue to be most compelling. A developer might be willing to purchase 201 Bedford Street for$7-$8 million to build a medium-density residential development with a proportion of affordable units. The annual incremental real estate taxes from such private development might generate$340,000. Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20-year amortization schedule, $340,000 could support a$3 4 million bond issue. Together, these two revenue sources could finance a$10-$11 million capital project. Current project cost estimates suggest that the new DPW facility might cost $11 million and the new Senior Center at 201 Bedford Street $6 million. NEXT STEPS A majority of the Committee recommends that the Board of Selectmen take the following actions: • Introduce and support a resolution under Article 25 at the 2003 Town Meeting to allow Town Meeting to debate and endorse the Committee's recommendation: A Senior Center and private residential development as the "best possible use" of 201 Bedford Street and Relocation of DPW operations to Hartwell Avenue. • Issue a Request for Interest (RFI) for the Hartwell Avenue landfill site to determine the opportunities for the sale or lease of some or all of the site, while outlining the Town's preference for expanding DPW operations at this site; • Appoint a committee to recommend guidelines for disposition of 201 Bedford Street. At a minimum, this committee should include representatives from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Fair Housing and Human Relations Commission, Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB), and the neighborhood, including the Precinct 8 Residents Association. • Schedule a special town meeting for fall 2003 to confirm the disposition of 201 Bedford Street and of the Hartwell Avenue landfill site, to establish financing strategies for building a new DPW facility and Senior Center, to appropriate funds for design of the two facilities, and to take any related actions. The Committee looks forward to your comments on this report and to a discussion by Town Meeting of the Committee's recommended "best possible use" of 201 Bedford Street. DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ExlJBrr A COM IITrEE PROCESS The Committee met twelve times from October 2002 through April 9 2003,at 7.45 AM on every other Wednesday morning. The Committee alternated its meeting site between the DPW Operations facility at 201 Bedford Street and the Senior Center at 1475 Massachusetts Avenue. Other interested parties attended these meetings and contributed to the Committee's work, including selectmen; representatives of the Fair Housing and Human Relations Committee; affordable housing advocates; neighbors of 201 Bedford Street; citizens; the Town's economic development officer, Mary Jo Bohart; the director of public works operations, Brian Gilbert; the assistant town engineer, David Carbonneau; and Bruce Haskell,PE, Camp Dresser&McKee, Inc. To ensure the appropriate focus on the essentials of the Selectmen's charge, the Committee organized itself into four working groups, and developed a scope of work for each group: DPW Working Group Refine architectural program and optimal operating characteristics of a new DPW facility assess Hartwell Avenue and 201 Bedford Street locations, relate 201 Bedford Street development proposals to DPW facility options, and recommend facilities and location(s). Senior Center Working Group Review preliminary architectural program requirements for a new Senior Center, reevaluate site selection criteria, relate 201 Bedford Street development proposals to Senior Center needs, and recommend building program and location. Request for Interest(RFI)Working Group(for 201 Bedford Street) Research, develop, and issue RFI inviting potential developers to indicate interest in developing 201 Bedford Street, develop criteria to evaluate and rank responses, and recommend whether or not to pursue a site disposition process involving outside developers. Decision-making Criteria Working Group Develop criteria for defining "best" in "best possible re-use" of 201 Bedford Street and facilitate the Committee's efforts to apply these criteria to yield Committee recommendations. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: 201 BEDFORD STREET Shortly after the New Year, the Committee issued a Request for Interest(RFI) requesting interested parties to propose private development of this 9.6-acre parcel. The RFI invited interested developers to visit the site on January 15, submit letters of interest by January 22, and respond to the RFI by Monday February 10. The RFI stated that no response would bind either the Town or the developer to any process or follow up action. Over 30 interested parties attend the site visit, 22 submitted letters of interest, and 14 submitted responses to the RFI. Exhibit C presents excerpts from the RFI: the Table of Contents, questions asked of proposed developers, and submittal requirements. Exhibit D presents a summary of these responses and one representative site plan proposing a residential development. The complete RFI is available at the Town's website at http://ci.lerington.ma.us./socialservIdpwfacility.htm. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Committee sent letters to neighbors of 201 Bedford Street on January 21 and March 3 informing them of the Committee's work and inviting their participation. The Committee conducted public information sessions at the National Heritage Museum at 7:30 PM on March 11 and at 8 AM on March 13. Approximately 45 people attended these sessions. Exhibit E includes copies of these letters and notes from the public information sessions. Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 April 14,2003 I DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY CONFMITTEE EMT B: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY Build DPW Build New DPW Renovate DPW DPW and Senior Center Criteria ® Hartwell Avenue ©201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford 0 201 Bedford SITE CONSIDERATIONS More than adequate Adequate Adequate Workable, not desirable Size of site 25 acres 9.6 acres 9.6 acres 7+ acres for DPW 2+ acres for senior center DPW site 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting requirements 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations 1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household hazardous waste hazardous waste hazardous waste hazardous waste Meets program Site large enough for site Adequate Existing structures limit Workable, with requirements? plan to maximize service Existing operations remain layout improvements; underground parking at and efficiency and address at Hartwell Ave adequate, if existing Senior Center and other 1 compost odor concerns operations remain at adjustments Hartwell Ave Opportunities for Yes No No No expansion or other use I OPERATIONS AND I Slightly Negative Neutral Neutral Slightly Negative SERVICES IMPACTS Positives One-stop service; some Some efficiencies Limited efficiencies New facilities, but on efficiencies, productivity resulting from new because new layout smaller site; much less improvements with staff, facilities, better layout dictated by existing yard area equipment at one location facilities Negatives Longer trips by staff to Missed opportunity for Missed opportunity for Missed opportunity for I most service sites one-stop service and one-stop service and efficiencies, one-stop Longer trips for some efficiencies at one location efficiencies at one location service; reduced yard area citizens to DPW behind senior center Exhibit B Page 1 of 3 April 14, 2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COM vIITrEE EXHIBIT B: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY Build DPW Build New DPW Renovate DPW DPW and Senior Center Criteria @ Hartwell Avenue @ 201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford ® 201 Bedford , RESPONSE TO 2020 Progress No progress No progress Some progress RECOMMENDATIONS Expand eldercare Releases 201 Bedford for No progress; No progress; Adds Senior Center on services Senior Center and requires another Senior requires another Senior tight site, but no room for potential "over 55" Center site; no over 55" Center site; no "over 55" future expansion; no residential development housing housing "over 55" housing Preserve physical Removes use inconsistent Continues use inconsistent Continues use inconsistent Continues current character of with residential with residential with residential inconsistent use; adds residential neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood senior center traffic neighborhoods Provide increased Creates opportunity at 201 Status quo; Status quo; Status quo; housing options to Bedford to expand housing missed opportunity to missed opportunity to missed opportunity to promote diversity of options, including improve housing options improve housing options improve housing options income and age affordable housing Increase protected Creates opportunity at 201 Tight site will limit Tight site will limit Intense development to open space Bedford for linear park opportunities to add opportunities to add meet DPW and Senior along bikeway and other protected open space protected open space Center needs: buildings, protected open space parking, circulation, service yard Create alternative Creates opportunity at 201 Status quo; missed Status quo; missed Status quo; missed revenue sources Bedford for one-time sale opportunity; all project opportunity; all project opportunity; all project proceeds and incremental costs must be raised by costs must be raised by costs must be raised by property taxes revenue; debt exclusion override debt exclusion override debt exclusion override preserves option for 6-8 acre private development at Hartwell Ave , Exhibit B Page 2 of 3 April 14, 2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EDIT B: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY Build DPW Build New DPW Renovate DPW DPW and Senior Center Criteria @ Hartwell Avenue @ 201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford COSTS AND BENEFITS ANNUAL IMPACTS I Increased DPW $(42,000 -$75,000) None None None operating costs (CDM, 1/01 and 1/03) Savings from DPW $42,000 -$75,000 None None None efficiencies (Offset cost increases) Incremental property $175,000 -$525,000 None None None taxes: 201 Bedford (RFI average:$337.000) Costs of town services $(0 - $225,000) None None None for 75 housing units (75 units (a, $3,000) Net Annual (Cost)/Benefit $(50,000)-$525,000 $0 $0 $0 SALES PROCEEDS I I I I Sell 201 Bedford $1,000,000 - $14,877,000 None None None (RFI average:$5.SM) Environmental cleanup I ($200,000 - $1,000,000) I I I Net One-time Benefit I $0 - $14,677,000 $0 I $0 I $0 DPW PROJECT COST ESTIMATES I Construction $11,369,000 $9,514,000 $9,514,000 $9,514,000 (CDM, 1/01) Design fees $847,000 $861,000 $861,000 $861,000 (CDM, 2/10/03) 1 Environmental cleanup I 0 I $100,000 - $200,000 I $100,000 $200,000 I $100,000 - $400,000 Potential savings for 0 ($450,000 - $655,000) using existing buildings (Savings per CDM, 2/03) Architectural details, I 0 $100,000 - $200,000 $100,000 - $200,000 I $100,000 - $200,000 vegetative buffer, etc DPW PROJECT COSTS I $12.216M I $10.575M - $10.775M I $9.920M - $10.325M I $10.575M - $10.975M Exhibit B Page 3 of 3 April 14, 2003 O U C n',.y� Oi ul O ...-.--(:,r-er '\ \ ‘ \ „ t\ \\ i l'i S � \ �� 27� V \i/:1,,/, 1(il ( i III i f� iAW jjrCi � \ ' /: g :777:7r\\\ Cita ,,•• IM. kt "rte !f' \ '��® t� ( r.1 ..":: 75, li i7 I1111.11ga "1...: C:711 I', 1 I 7: 1 ) ' :::::: i 7 sii,,, ,, , __\ IG i \4 s �. `\ ....„,,,,,.1 �u�u�tst, IIla wuiimat f l���: - �/ i,u,u��,�at kt:1- l \ I y \ \ �+ ``` _-_,.,\,\ .moi __________L-,�"� // 00 e _ �..-�" .. „ „,, l .��i�EXE tB 28 fig m4 14' __---"`-J ✓- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAI ti - ��n /..� �i ., _ !' „A-- _ I i1' 1111 r 1I TI " 1--,� C / / J, . ' mv.. IIII W�P �a4.,,l,d,^,1����/�r�t� )i / lr '7IDIi li;Ahl.I11161161 Gu8 I ;�� r. / / / ) 4v ��laniniii -F----alt o 1s fsL �_ ei =-,r- ifti.- I ( \ r iiw \` \ /, � tis/ \ f` ti ii . 7 )1 /1 ///if4" ir-- .›;.8....x-, _c____,.: _ , L, N.,- _________t, ,._. ,..., I / /iiiii It \ / kly \ Jr r ,•_ _ �, \ C ) 1 Ii, ik 1 , ''''' ' fr" 1 • `' / ° ORAPIIIC SCALE \ g Xit:•in -,-.....„ ...."'- , I IIIMMIIII VIZ 'hibif B " *----z"sCDM cwa....a McKee t. TOWNCF LEXINGTON moC� pril 14,2003 _ „ ,=1 �Em a w w.eAwuusErrs IpTyeuLL�vErri�e ! -F OEPARiMMYOF PUSUC WORKS Im.�.W 3 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 non E aa PI 11.1.1"1.1 PI M 124 111”1111.1,111•1111ri U 1-..1 ICE rs 1/1.11.14.1,11 PI ( 11 I-��®i tkr -6414 i rvnunw 1 �__g fa��i . .. F mCie " ma ua" 11 `44 anal D aim non. ♦� �� ;1 al.61ii�ii_ILi -0 =O. /AAYN9TRRMR BL{AW ^ PLANS =•-•••— t�v Z -'f j%% y - - nia /' _ :# '// . {f "nn.„",omrte' i i i i it r-- -- ' ItiitllMffilfil1 ti f FC m , 3 iiin'0. ,, ,/ . I CRAPIIIC SCALE moat a CC= Exhibit B — _ .wm CDM atm�lauan loc. L INGTOKMASS LEXINGTON SCHEMATIC DESIGNTREET ` , .. —= ".Li I LIC Apii114,2003 = ” „� Y -3 ( DEPARTMENT OF PUBWORKS I ' I I 0 / ' , , 7 c2- )•,/ , \ -</tY/0--- - 14e, 7",--:-Y , :,A. i < ' , ,1, • i -, ,) 1 .. ......,_ , , \-. 2 . c y _ • , \, .... ,....„ ,,, , ., , 1 I ',74 . ? II 1\\\_' V\'':\ i //f '‘/-44 c;7. % N 4 le,' '`.' 4. ' A\ iii t.„,,,, • k,„, , ( H--- IA - r. J....sc., -_ , i. ,,,,,, , , , , c-L., ,,,,' 1 ‘,. , I ti ---- Lir 1 1\ ;— / 4? ? ' _ —Y 1 4E4 \ r---„,.. _Ci ; ir i MN- t -c / /24S--- , f *N%, \-g ' liki e ‘Th.- ---:-..,27 c----- 4 - ' ' I / 4 .,/If -'-s•-• k; 1 .1 I , .... -.e.,:-‘ .- t•••-t, / 1/ / I I, i ,I t / 1 4i011% \I- ‘ r, • "".• 1111 - Nr., – , -1 , _ ,, trail \ pli4 , , ,1/4,... .. , -4:•1/44.,... A , .)., / '1 > i A I isi440st $ ',vas- rem's: v // '.- -.c( fri _tit "t-, s ' • PA•3/4.1 4/;;;,t; — r: ' ".,,,, ti .,, ei ,;m•„; .,, / / • .,„,...,„ it. .4P.; i‘o)1 7, "V, , 1 tir,44.-Nt, , ain 6 r A' \ P4 ---milligefit 6 i •' I eve' i ''' Ts, , At 47 JoN,.//z- - i. 40c, nal icil _44 en oig ' atio-sli A ' 4 14,4vOtl''''' ' -,—. ' I 0.7•Plirriaispitiprqi ) i#,74> ' 4,4.531 '7,--..-• ntsooicngt.a.'se.* ..si -- 7 Ait • c-- /-`-' , , ,' :44 I,E 1.10.1.- .,,„I • :Ir.' * In II. rAft I\ j- \ \ ki i /4c,.....itting trIluIVIIMItig.) I \ 1 , 1 \• 1 i \II i -a : i . -_,-/, ,,,,,, , , fteems,,ttilativisimeirfrikitatim in it i / • . 71/6 _„„alfe4--=-P trvi rieT,rante• J 8 , A \ \ , --i i i ../1011110-wzi,,‘„,...-r • r ; e,:c1/4, In - Ss_--fr - --- -it ---- i_i ir ---t- ---- --- ) ' ji,Z / 1'N • - - -egg% -_-__:_ _17/427—, , -;-; _ s / /A ,/-),---_- „. ...-,-__ _ \,, Exhibit B ....... I \ ilr .. re _. ...t. . __\ _4 _ if ' T . , igoo0_ cit.\ 1:1 ti -- ) ' 19° L \ reli ,-,/ 1 I r—-C \ All'( - '11 I 8 4/ j s ___, , 1 ---.. 0 1 0. 9. April 14,2003 i 11. } ' I ' I t t) Cil / V ---1 ' ' >/.., .---"A FT 0— _ , . _ / , i L 1 $ ri_Likl. \---- _ - , '---.* DPW FAcWrUY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Exurr C EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 201 BEDFORD STREET TABLE OF CONTENTS REQUEST FOR INTEREST. 3 ANTICIPATED PROCESS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. 5 TOWN OBJECTIVES: 6 OVERALL OBJECTIVES: 6 DISCUSSION: 6 SPECIFIC RFI OBJECTIVES: 7 SELECTION CRITERIA. 7 QUESTIONS. 8 RFI-SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 9 APPENDIX A-SITE INFORMATION. 10 SITE OVERVIEW AERIAL PHOTO VHB/VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT. "FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,"MARCH 1999 APPENDIX B—CHARGE TO COMMITTEE. 11 APPENDIX C—ZONING. 12 APPENDIX D—CAMP DRESSER&MCKEE INC.(CDM)REPORT. 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JANUARY 2001 APPENDIX E—LEXINGTON CORE VALUES. .... 15 Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 April 14,2003 DPW FACILTTF/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Daum C EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 201 BEDFORD STREET Questions In attempting to evaluate potential private development projects, answers to the following questions are requested. The questions are non-binding and are asked in an effort to facilitate further discussions and to assist the Town in developing the best possible reuse scenario. Please tell us under what conditions von would engage in further discussions: 1 Purchase of the fee title of the property? Yes No Range of potential price you are willing to pay to obtain fee ownership of the entire parcel. 2. Long-term lease of the property? Yes No Range of potential price to be remitted to the Town for an annual lease: 3 Lease term Minimum: Maximum: 4 Co-existence with the Senior Center- Yes No If co-existing with Senior Center, what are your minimum space needs: 5 Would you be willing to purchase or lease the site with present structures thereon: Yes No 6. Would you be willing to purchase or lease the site "as is" and prior to any environmental remediation or clean up: Yes No 7 Would you require existing buildings to be removed by the Town? Yes No 8. Would you consider constructing all or a portion of either the DPW facility or Senior Center facility in conjunction with your proposed project? Yes No 9 If your answer to Question 8 is yes, please describe the extent of your intended participation in the narrative portion of your Letter of Interest. Exhibit C Page 2 of 3 April 14,2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Exna C EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 201 BEDFORD STREET RFI - Submittal Requirements Please tell us as much as you can about your proposed project. Be specific where possible: 1 Size 2. Configuration (number of floors, number of buildings proposed on the site) 3. Type of use (i.e. retail, housing, commercial office, etc.) 4 Who would it benefit? (i.e. public use, private use, etc.) 5 How much traffic is the project likely to generate? 6. Overall goals of the project 7 Site Plan 8. If possible, please provide a conceptual or schematic rendering or photographs of similar projects. Please tell us about your company 1 Who comprises the company / development partnership 2. Years in business 3. Primary type of development 4 Fiscal health of company 5 Examples of similar projects 6. Provide references Exhibit C Page 3 of 3 April 14,2003 0 N 4 r4 4. G x d ta I ea/ N 90ZUY V. p iPs we� a w own � o % 3 % U b)" •i' U w� > °kl, G - 0 0 0 ca vil un 0, dOk 04 U f 0 O W Q1 O ViVJj^. iks _ %ViOSw III 7,y ANN:' t l � U % f �Wi P o✓ Ul Qo aO Ct CA' Ty Ww 'Olt d 'Y Y Qp to % f z �j� N lit O O {` Q Q �+y U Aa%W �SO .. s '91 Vt ' r* 0 sr+ *114 'I t el O CN _ Y 1 V 0 G) a _. I y N M 6 � Y g 441 d Igo d p gr 51 e. ' "L 3d J ISZ. N F vi 401 '/' -- Y 1 Coin 40) 01 . u, !o0; % w t] N w .. a al 8 g0 N O �ypY 3 O O O `� O N O� y v` q N i. Q G W O •G '^ Z M � u1 w 91w 00 C •e k0 N N 71 i-i U Dog � c ° g ° 4 4.4 �kn $, r 0 a11 O F E o 0 x I� O d U - - I Y Y 83 o a s va w w o q A 1 w � 2m3 w �"� N P4 p $ p �a o � � 3'ip % w gg >" Z G1 "I I d a da � � s N 41 d 0 a tiNP' aha ° I P e o foo o •agw in a La gg r Z N 0 0 R+ V d . w o d A "� a p v. oS O Y U l % 0 .0 v Z ° Z H E a 4Z r os N ‘01% Yy '4-6 O V1 V1 UO O `%F to §145 O O O l'..) FW 1 y /` 8 O G N r '9 m i uOi0vi w. 1pO ca NOCw j p r'a 41 3' OQ o y • .. W pA� 0 Nc N U Li •Z U tn p.A 1 1.: o A 7 $r U 0 A rj , It S 3 % ° 0 p U W z � a E �P p" °tSS vii o d ai In 3C 3- ° v, y N N "' N °V N a) t� C 7 4 N N ,_, y u t' O att i. N 'w V is P. " V y. 'O N q v T Na 7 O • •'i. e h. o u u 0 c d o a o . , 3 Q 0 Q A .y a) 6 a 4 OY N C P. �. F > .. a o y d c 0 C ° ° ° 3 d c �eb 3 r M Fi..) K aJ .0 01) ❑ A ='8b rPa m w � oG .. O3 Ofd p ^ " y w • y 0 4 P. 3 G N ). 4) � O 3 w aCI o6. el CO dpc A d V`° dQC ' ...H 0 tO 3 o b V FG ' a) ,, 3o' ^ .,!W .. a)y 0Y ° a) OP o' 03 . ea .4; a • •L O N aE .1.,, a) CO a) giy " h -0. N >YP H O y 4 Fto � a a 1 bm '5v o3y E Q a .NV) O F 7 N > e a ... O O ,,, NVs tE P. F d co O a1 N a c. a. ": ' cs dO .- p op G 0P, t. 3 y paaC p ^ �Q I ` O .s �. O P,3 S y a) C g pa G O a3 �Up G J y � gaa ° ea y 3 H p 64 10 g W C 0 40 d d 7 0 P.e _w 3 3 b co qd o �-' C c oa • = C O to... „ 3 � O . C gU y y ' O a Py N O y �b0 � r I.. 70 'i � � U '6 7 7 7 • . Or C•y A AO C W pG - P. Y ° P. coyV N N ?"' 2 0 it co rza Z0 y o a) 0.O 0 d a)_ O,4 .J 'p n Op.Q y o 7 A 0 * OaZden[A Og h. H elt) C .. u E �+ri t0 ... g '° ° O 1 Oa om a c . C H °) H H� 3a ^ O o 0aU. >, IAb on 3 a _ la Wk1 ou a m ami o o a' 5 S OD y to Y °u 0 PhiIA 44la to Y � = of 4-- too ocoa NmE 01 xyo -2 .5 °� {s. w L ° u ca 2 ° cto a.id c § c G '• oo v y u 1'. w O T G C i p 3 �' v G �+ C el O e " N P. O ; g, d o ed tp m y w %1 O ami y Ti aci 3 a a3 9C 11 Y > 1� E o O ,yCrj1 7 C 'H•' '� �C' F 0 "° L 'u. A p, 0 .E v 1_, a) S >. 0 o u C m _ to a ea m �a Y �' is G el u A V `'� t u E "M .y. E o P' c o 4 'chi cn cn i ❑ ' W a o ba rcc. c a r. a3 cti D O ,d moo w Q 0 co .01 d) � � v 9ov^i � p X6 E U CC 7 t'a .3 O N O a O G g A P i a) a) 7 a3 v. Q t a 0. 031 w ~ O � . rr�1 c , a0j ,., O N 3 O '° ° Oa a. A w i' > O ECS�j 7 O04 W EPS ° � ° dS `� � -5 < `` oNeCi3`� �gc Pkv ca a o5� d ` ° 'C g m c 0to 8 3 ° a A Sia• CS �- v, 3. u G c o ii a 3 u O „ C . o � K U p � ° � � 3 � o3Y2a' oq � b � � aES do c o a or eY y L g ' %.. eo o . x T el F '° sa°i o4 V' o s . c m o mpg � � � 8 boa' ' d � as E O o $ o .5 ,H m n 5 3 m - c o H ' mon Q Q o Q Q t3 O . a O w A o Q g-a s v m K 3 mag ” 3 "c' 3 c 2 � o 'Z a 7 To r o QOo5 � � G so . u20 as x° a5 d pa 3 8g s u vi a s t h Fa c 0 o 4. OD A 7 C •7 A ami 2 C m 3S y t� 1. O 4= cirri y0 V W A v �'a , F �/ /, / mld e C _c .. tat t$x n \I • /// 1 �n try` \ •�j a m C tet 6 '+_ v",,:,,:_, ,. 2r� 4� �> Czt h, ,,,,:::-:%:f ;� i / ,,,,.....„:„.„. . _, ^ ,F3 ki t Epe vi j �� / a ,,,,,,. : //,„ . . ,t.„..._..„, ..,31/4„...• A it: 0 ::::„.„,.,„:„.s.-__%,,,,s,,,--- --- ._,L. 0 1 V� <'‘'.;;,:%-i..'. . r Is, o II is �� J7:-‘73/4141•:74,' II7 (--- ,,.--,,, - t :,. ,-- ''''---•,-,r4 • ' ,4-, 7 \ ; \00 ,s1/4,7,_ III \ I .4.`1;7-<-1",:,k,;:;- / \ '`� )1 ‘11. al) : ?‘-' .ccr::::ii:i.11.'.4:5:-:.,)5 \_.,-,.:::::;11.!-.;.1,..11.7,1a144...\ % . . ii \ lle !: . _ adsni..; .,. .14. ...„::::4.:.:43.e. by, . .4,4,....„. \ ,i. eir , :4,. ..,2 .; eget, 44 .14‘..445,,,, oil; ).. . :a. 5 .v.r. \\ Its wytt.A0. _ . 4 ‘, vsmit ilep.- 4, , j l(H i s. �, , . �, to ioots 1 , t \\\ , \ . , • .�' -%� ® , 1 1 • 1 *I)) • j 4 Y .4 r' B.. �� u_.,/notag r 1-b ,, , --... •••• il*� C/ fSS�E' \ al a/ % I s. .a•U 1175 MORhi �' P Town of Lexington 11:ri a Department of Public Works ' r a Administration Ma"M P IN;.; Tel: (781) 862-0500 x252 Fax: (781) 863-2350 January 21,2003 Dear neighbors of 201 Bedford Street: Last October the Board of Selectmen appointed an advisory committee to examine various land use options for 201 Bedford Street. As chair of the DPW/201 Bedford Street Advisory Committee,I am writing to advise you of the process the committee has undertaken and to invite your participation. I have enclosed the Selectmen's charge to the committee and a committee roster. While this Committee is building on the work of prior committees that studied potential sites for DPW operations and for a new senior center,the selectmen directed this committee to also test the feasibility of private development of 201 Bedford Street. Thus,the committee has prepared and issued a request for interest(RFI)to invite developers to suggest options for developing 201 Bedford Street. Shortly after the New Year,the committee publicized the availability of the RFI and invited prospective developers to visit 201 Bedford Street on January 15. [A copy of the RFI is available at the DPW Administration Offices and at the town's web site at http://ci.lexington.ma.us./socialserv/dpwfacility.htm.J Approximately 30 developers were represented at this site visit. The RFI asks interested developers to submit letters of interest by January 22 and to respond to the RFI by Monday February 10. None of these responses will bind either the Town or the developer to any process or follow up action. To solicit public input,the Committee will conduct public information meetings in February or March before reporting to the Selectmen. I will notify you of the dates and locations of these information sessions. The warrant for the 2003 Town Meeting may contain one or more articles related to the DPW operations facility,the senior center,and the disposition of 201 Bedford Street. While the Committee will likely report its findings to Town Meeting,it is not clear at this time whether Town Meeting will be asked to take action on any such articles. The committee has met every other Wednesday morning since November and has scheduled meetings at 7.45 AM on the following dates at the locations indicated: January 29 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue February 12 DPW Operations,201 Bedford Street February 19 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue All committee meetings are posted at Town Hall. You are welcome to join us. You may also contact me at 781-861 9545 or at paul t@paulhlapointe.com with comments and questions. Very truly yours, C;)//aZ Paul H.Lapointe Chair Enclosures as stated Exhibit E. Letters to Neighbors Page 1 of 2 April 14,2003 •V MOtty, .. IJjS ' F P Town of Lexington SI s urs g' Department of Public Works 3. 3 " r Administration c 'Mr' IN rte Tel: (781) 862-0500 x252 Fax: (781) 863-2350 March 3,2003 Dear neighbors of 201 Bedford Street: As chair of the DPW/201 Bedford Street Advisory Committee,I am writing to report briefly on private developers' responses to our Request for Interest(RFI),update you on the committee's progress, and invite you to attend the public informational sessions scheduled on March 11 and 13. On February 10, 14 developers responded to the Committee's RFI inviting non-binding proposals for the purchase or lease of 201 Bedford Street. Of these 14, 12 developers proposed housing developments of various kinds. Offers to purchase the property ranged from$1 million to over$13 million. Most developers expressed a willingness to include a new senior center in the development at no expense to the town. These responses suggest that there would be considerable interest in purchasing or leasing this parcel should the town initiate a formal disposition process. The developers' responses are available for public review at the Public Works administrative offices,Room 206,at Town Hall. While the Committee discussed these responses at its February 26 meeting, the Committee has not yet voted on specific recommendations to forward to the selectmen. However,the committee will make every effort to issue at least a preliminary report before town meeting begins on Monday March 24,and will report to the selectmen no later than April 1. Inviting public continent is an important step in our process of developing final recommendations. To that end,we have scheduled two public information sessions in the Farr Conference Center at the National Heritage Museum at 33 Marrett Road: Tuesday, March 11, at 7:30 PM Thursday, March 13, at 8 AM At each session we will outline the recommendations that the Committee is considering and provide an overview of the responses received from developers. You are also welcome to attend either of the Committee's March meetings scheduled for the following Wednesdays at 7.45 AM: March 12 DPW Operations, 201 Bedford Street March 26 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue You may also send your comments by phone or email directly to me at 781-861-9545 or at naulaa.naulhlanointe.com. All committee meetings are posted at Town Hall. You are welcome to join us. Very truly yours,urs, (5)Se 4zoott Paul H.Lapointe Chair Exhibit E: Letters to Neighbors Page 2 of 2 April 14, 2003 11YYV rAtLL11V/J1:NIUKLEIVILK RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT E. PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Comments from Public Information Meeting March 11, 2003 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM Address/ Name Affiliation Comment Eric Olson 3 Hill St. He was concerned about the potential costs of environmental cleanup at Bedford Street associated with new use. Charlie Flammer 52 Reed St. What is prompting this process? PL responded that need for new a DPW and senior center is driving the process. Ephram Weis Lowell St. What is the space need and costs of the senior center? PL responded that the senior center will need 30-32K SF with 150 parking spaces; Cost @$200/SF$6 million. EW said that the senior center should allow for expansion and questioned why we are also building housing on site. PL said that housing provides a revenue source. EW believes the town should support a senior center with or without a revenue source. Sheldon Specter Appropriations For clarification,he requested that PL provide the existing senior Committee center program. PL said that Mill Street in Lincoln has 2K SF and Muzzey has 9,700 SF Dianne Garcia Precinct 8 She requested details on the 55+requirements for housing. John McWeeney replied that 55+housing has a statutory basis in MA zoning regulations. 55+tends to be easier for communities to approve because of the lower service requirements(no students). Traffic generation from 55+housing averages 3 trips per day per unit versus 6 trips per day for a typical housing unit. Sherry Gordon School Concerned about properly integrating the Bikeway Also concerned Committee that the area already has a lot of traffic congestion. David Kaufman 152 Burlington The Conservation Commission wishes to preserve a buffer or park St. around the brook that runs through the Bedford Street property. Deb Marion Liberty Ave. She asked if the RFI was silent on conservation issues and traffic generation. Michelle Ciccollo replied that the RFI asked respondents to state the traffic impact of their plans. Gil Bhengiat 5 Sunny Knoll Project should be consistent with the scope of the neighborhood(not Ave. a large shopping center). Layout is also important when determining the merits of a project. Some higher density projects can actually appear less dense than lower density projects due to the layout. PLP said that there were considerable differences in proposed density The mid point appeared to be 78-80 units. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit E. Public Meeting Notes Page 1 of 5 April 14,2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT E. PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Comments from Public Information Meeting March 11, 2003 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM Address/ Name Affiliation Comment Anne O'Niel 6 Vaille Ave. It is currently very difficult to exit from Sunny Knoll onto Bedford St. Development may make this situation worse. Lights at the Bikeway complicate signalization of Sunny Knoll. Guy Garland 21 Preston Road The project should have as much green space as possible. Affordable housing would also be good. Faith Slocumb Road Believes this is a good place for a senior center but that housing should not be limited to 55+ Carolyn Cicomont Ledgelawn Ave. She asked why strip malls and other commercial developments weren't included on the list distributed at the meeting. Michelle responded that commercial respondents provided very little information and for that reason weren't considered worthy of further analysis at this time. Gil Bhengiat 5 Sunny Knoll He is concerned that retail would generate a lot of traffic. He like Ave the concept of 55+housing. John Cole Whipple Road How much is DPW impacted by moving 1 mile out of town? Bill Hadley said that CDM completed an operational impact cost analysis,which showed an impact of around $30,000 per year David Kaufman 152 Burlington What is the current trip generation for the DPW? Street Dan Smith Lexington He believes the work force in Lexington would benefit from Worker affordable housing. Eph Weis Lowell St. He asked if co-locating the Fire Department and DPW at 201 Bedford St.had been considered since the Fire Department also needs a new building. Eric Olson 3 Hill Street Has anyone looked into costs of building on the landfill? David Carbonneau said that CDM quantified costs of necessary foundation supports and methane venting systems. The cost was around $300,000-$400,000. Deb Maugher Would it be possible to have a joint presentation to the Selectmen of all concerned parties so the process would not be piecemealed? Page 2 of 2 Exhibit E. Public Meeting Notes Page 2 of 5 April 14, 2003 IWW I(ACUITY/SENIORCENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT E. PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Comments from Public Information Meeting March 13, 2003 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM Address/ Name Affiliation Comment Denise Dube 11 Pine Knoll What is the possibility of having 1 entrance/exit for senior center and Road and Globe 1 for residents? PL responded that that would be a future Nor hWest consideration in the actual design phase. Ingrid Klimoff 75 Reed St. Asked which parcel of land might be transferred to the Conversation Commission? PL pointed out a parcel that is outside of the 9.6 acres showed to developers. It is adjacent to the bike path at the back of the DPW lot. Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Asked how many acres would be available? Jack Fucci 37 Ledgelawn So can the parcel be developed? Leo McSweeney BOS Chair& If the parcel is transferred to conservation,could that negatively 435 Lincoln impact this process? PL's response to last 3 questions: The committee does not want that parcel transferred at this time and would prefer the decision wait until after this process is complete. It is up to Town Meeting to decide how many acres could be developed. Olga Guttag 273 Emerson What if the Town moves the DPW to Hartwell Ave and years from Road now finds out the site is hazardous? Where will the DPW go? Also, what will happen to the composting operation there? She is afraid the DPW will lose employees because the composting smells. She believes the location of a service facility is critical in the operating budget-what impact would there be if the DPW were moved further from the center of town? PL responded that the closing of the landfill would allow for an industrial type facility at that location. David Carbonneau said that there would be some changes in the current composting operation. The old landfill never had a lot of waste. PL added that David Eagle on the committee looked at 15-20 service points around town to compare service delivery distances and CDM studied this as well. Estimates show the extra cost for the distance could be$30-50,000,which is very little in respect to the overall DPW operating budget. Also,there would be cost savings in efficiencies and enhanced services due to a consolidated department. Paul Hamburger 18 Cooke Road Asked about how the capping process works. David Carbonneau explained that hot spot materials will be removed and that the town has done a very detailed survey of this. The state has approved it. Page 1 of 3 Exhibit E: Public Meeting Notes Page 3 of 5 April 14, 2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Comments from Public Information Meeting March 13, 2003 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM Address/ Name Affiliation Comment Olga Guttag 273 Emerson Believes it is important to be able to dispose of yard waste and how Road would moving the DPW affect the composting service for residents? PL explained the site is 25 acres and the DPW would only need 9-12 acres. Anne Frymer 64 Asbury Questioned how over 55 housing would affect community since many of the proposals are 55+ John McWeeney explained that there is less impact on the schools than if families lived there. Said that tax revenue for condos would twice that for apartments. Anne Frymer 64 Asbury What are the requirements on homes? Who could buy them? JM responded that they would probably be open to everyone,though affordable housing has stipulations. Anne Frymer 64 Asbury Believes it would be fair to have them open to Lexington residents first and then to everyone. JM said that that would be a constraint on the market place and doesn't know if developers would agree to that. PL also said that specifying that type of guideline is not within the charge of the committee. 1 Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Said the CDM report makes sense because there would be better access of entry onto Hartwell Ave. 201 Bedford St.is appropriate for a senior center,though she would like to see it set back a little more. Thinks the town needs affordable housing and that the town should lease the land and not sell it. JM said that selling the land and having housing other than just affordable housing would bring in a cash flow to help pay for capital needs. Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Believes the town could benefit from affordable housing and that tax benefits should not be the only consideration. JM replied that most developers are not interested in leasing. Furthermore near the end of a lease capital improvements tend to stop. Also,it is hard to get back the land for other town purposes. Bob Heingartner 53 Ledgelawn Would the land for the senior center be sold or retained? PL thinks the town would want to retain the land,but doesn't know at this time. Bob feels residential use is preferred. Cathy Abbott 38 Eldred St. When Town Meeting makes a decision on the disposition of land, could they require a senior center be built there? PL said that the committee would make that recommendation to the BOS and T M, however,the BOS and TM would have to decide if they want the senior center there and then offer 201 up for development. Page 2 of 3 Exhibit E:Public Meeting Notes Page 4 of 5 April 14,2003 1)YW rAC1L1TY/JENIURLENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT E. PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS Comments from Public Information Meeting March 13, 2003 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM Address/ Name Affiliation Comment Leo McSweeney 435 Lincoln How have the neighbors reacted? Jack Fucci 37 Ledgelawn Does not want the redevelopment to be outside the norms of the town. Worried about number of stories or density,but housing and senior center are ok. Spoke with other residents and they feel the same. Bob Heingartner also worries about high density. JF asked who has oversight over the set backs,brook,conservation land etc. PL said that the Conservation Commission wants a linear park along the bike path. The town could make restrictions over open space ideas. The parcel would probably have to go through a re-zoning process and go in front of the MA. At the meeting on Tuesday,residents were also concerned about increased traffic and noise. Ingrid Klimoff 75 Reed St. She thinks there has not been enough time. She also favors affordable housing and is concerned about traffic,cutting down trees and that DPW trucks could be stuck on Hartwell if there is a major emergency regarding Hanscom Paul Hamburger 18 Cooke Rd. What question did the committee ask to get a price from developers? PL said that the committee asked what they would be willing to pay PH asked if the committee's charge required enough revenue to come in for payment of a new DPW Is the committee looking for more density in order to bring in more money? PL said that is not part of the charge and increased density for more money has never been a consideration. Olga Guttag 273 Emerson She is afraid that residential units would push the traffic capacity of Bedford St. which would also affect the DPW services traveling down Bedford St. Have any traffic studies been done? PL said that there are traffic studies of DPW but no new ones have been done. He said it is unlikely the senior center would have that much impact on traffic because most of it would not be during peak periods. Jack Fucci 37 Ledgelawn Could new developers participate in an RFP? PL said yes and that an RFP is a more stringent process. Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Did any developers say they would put more affordable housing on the land if they didn't have to purchase it? PL said no. Page 3 of 3 Exhibit E.Public Meeting Notes Page 5 of 5 April 14,2003 DPW FACII,ITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT F• STATEMENT FROM FAIR HOUSING AM)HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE The following is from the Lexington Fair Housing and Human Relations Committee, for consideration by the DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-Evaluation Committee for inclusion in the Committee's report: The Lexington 2020 Vision report states that it is one of Lexington's goals to "create strong incentives to maintain and expand affordable housing. " This view is reinforced in The Lexington We Want, a document developed by the Planning Board in conjunction with a variety of town organizations and citizens. The Lexington We Want concurs with the 2020 Vision report, saying that, "Lexington seeks to have a socially and economically diverse community"but notes that in recent years the Town has failed to act on that goal. The report goes on to recommend that when acting in the disposition of public land, Lexington should give priority to using the land for "diversity-serving housing" (and for preservation of open space). This committee supports the goal of a socially and economically diverse community. To that end, and in keeping with the 2020 Vision report and The Lexington We Want, this committee recommends that: • Proposals for residential developments must include affordable housing units; • Where proposals are otherwise similar preference be given to those that have a greater percentage of affordable housing units; • The Town accept a price for the sale or lease of the 201 Bedford Street land which allows the developer to make a fair return on a residential development with affordable housing units, noting that affordable housing, by definition, generates less revenue than market rate units. Harriet Cohen Fair Housing and Human Relations Committee March 19, 2003 Exhibit F Page 1 of 1 April 14,2003 DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXHIBIT G BIBLIOGRAPHY/CHRONOLOGY OF PRIOR DPW AND SENIOR CENTER STUDIES "Proposal for a New Senior Center " The Council on Aging report to Town Meeting, March 2000. A product of 20 months of research, the report detailed the need for a new Senior Center, demographics, current size constraints, and successes in other communities. "Space/Building Assessment Advisory Committee Report," April 3, 2000. An 11- member committee and a liaison from Capital Expenditure and one from Appropriations appointed by the Selectmen in October 1999 The purpose of the Committee was to take a comprehensive look at space needs throughout the town and to make recommendations as to how the identified needs could be met in the future. The committee evaluated the usability of many Town buildings and properties, as well as some privately owned sites that might be advisable for the town to purchase. "Report to the Selectmen's Senior Center Siting Committee." The Social Service Department's Space Analysis Committee, August 3, 2000. This group of 29 citizens met beginning in May of 2000. This committee distributed questionnaires to current senior center users and also interviewed these users. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) Report "Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Department of Public Works Garage Facility", January 2001 The Town retained CDM to review the Hartwell Ave and Bedford Street sites for a new DPW Facility. The study included architectural and structural evaluation of the existing facility, an evaluation of the space and facility needs for the DPW, the development of conceptual site and architectural plans for the two sites, and an analysis of the comparative cost of construction and operation at the two sites. "Senior Center Siting Committee Report" The Selectmen's Senior Center Siting Committee report to the Selectmen, April 2, 2001. The 12-member committee formed in May of 2000 was made up of a combination of interested town meeting members and liaisons from other town standing committees, Capital, Recreation, Appropriations and Conservation. They examined possible 15 sites for a new Center visited 6 other Senior Centers. "DPW Facility Site Working Group, February 4, 2002" This group consisted of eight members of the community and four staff. Their mission was to look into the economic and practical implications of renovating the current DPW facility versus constructing a new DPW Facility and the economic advantages of the 201 Bedford Street site versus the Hartwell Avenue site. "Capital Expenditure Committee Report to the 2002 Annual Town Meeting and the 25 March 2002 Special Town Meeting," page 18. The Capital Expenditures Committee is a five-member board appointed by the Town Moderator to consider the relative need, timing, and cost of capital expenditure projects proposed for the ensuing five-year period. Exhibit G Page 1 of 1 April 14, 2003